Over the weekend, the mainstream media was
absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment
by special counsel, Robert Mueller.

This was proof positive, they
insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016
presidential election. Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two
day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature.

Manafort & Gates

The celebration came to a crashing end when the
indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates,
were unsealed Monday morning. It turns out the charges are, basically, a
tax fraud case. The two men stand accused of hiding their income from
their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then
lying about it. That’s it.

The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or
Russia or “collusion.” The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes
up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the
tree. Gee whiz.

The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to
anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his
business dealings. The FBI raided his home over the summer. It was
later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as
2014. And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by
Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged.

It could be said that Hillary
Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking
campaign finance laws with impunity.

The media became even more dispirited when they read
through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s
alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman
of the Trump campaign. In other words, there is no connection to either
Trump or his campaign.

Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van
Jones were crying. Again. Just like the tears they shed on camera
election night when Hillary lost.

Papadopoulos

But wait. Shortly after the indictments were unsealed,
the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel
revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the
FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the
Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?

Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single
charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with
so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the
media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a
single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a
political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the
criminal codes.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked
with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal
impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly
unattainable.

But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump,
Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a
Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton. What law did
he break? None. The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that
it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in
campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money. Which
brings us to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign
and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a
British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and
discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC
30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or
receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of
false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the
money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have
done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a
fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have
been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said
that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by
breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all. Damning new evidence
appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to
confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in
donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings,
intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts
allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at
the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously
approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it
would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b),
mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343). It might also
qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation
is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.

Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has
managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel. Trump, on the
other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team,
notwithstanding a dearth of evidence.

Robert Mueller

The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel.

Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in
court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal. The criminal charges
change all that. The two defendants will be able to argue before a
judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes.
Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order
appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein
directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between
the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of
President Donald Trump.” It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a
crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He
is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would
be disbanded by judicial order. The Department of Justice would have
to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special
counsel or drop the case entirely.

The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with
disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning. Fired FBI
Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media
for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel
who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner.

It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed
Mueller. We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One
sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money
laundering. They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from
Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a
vital national security asset. A cover-up? It has the stench of one.

How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the
Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and
Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the
Clinton-Russia case? Both men should resign.

And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Firstly, Med, this is firstly. There are more charges to follow, I am sure.

Secondly, it shows the type of man Trump employs in high position. The fact that Manafort was thrown to the wolves so quickly just displays the complete lack of loyalty, cohesion or honor.

3, Hilary. When on the thread about Hilary, Trump was discussed, you complained. You can't have that both ways. Incidentally, where are you getting your facts? Hilary was cleared of legal wrongdoing (though, privately, in my mind not of actual wrongdoing) and only a few right-wing extremist sites are still attacking her for emails, uranium etc.. As for the money spent getting the dirt on Trump. I do not know if that is criminal, I hope not, or every single member of every security service working for America in America is breaking the law. As far as I can tell, the specific part which turns security information gathering into a crime is the gathering it for campaign use, not to prevent the abuses of another campaigner. Legally twisted but legal. The site you quote says: "If the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption." So. why no prosecution if this is true? The Republican party control all three houses. If this were true then they would jump on her so fast she would get carpet burns.

4, Papadopoulos, Can you not hear how this sounds? He is no lawbreaker because he only broke one law. The fact that the scumbag turned stool pidgeon at the first question shows just how far the "Every man for himself!" ethos has spread through the White house.

5, Despite being in control of all three houses, in your words: "Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel. Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team," Could it be simply that they know he is guilty, they know he can hire superior lawyers and they want to have a cast iron set of evidence before they start? That is how it seems to me.

6, You ask: "How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case? " I can't speak for Americans, but I don't. Comey behaved like a Republican stooge in releasing evidence about Clinton's campaign in the final few days and not bothering to say she was not under investigation. Trump did nothing. Then Comey said Trump was under investigation and was promptly fired. That convinced me the system was more crooked than a corksrew in a spring factory and would remain so while Trump headed the party which ruled all three houses.

Comey was not totally popular but did have a reputation for honesty. On the other hand, Trump.....................

Federal investigators know that Kushner met with then-Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in Trump Tower last December and later met
with Sergey Gorkov, head of the Kremlin-controlled VEB bank in two
meetings that he didn’t, at first, disclose publicly or on his
application for his national-security clearance. After those meetings became public, Kushner and the White House said the contacts were made in his role as a Trump adviser and didn’t involve discussion of his family business.
But VEB and a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin described
the meetings quite differently, noted Adam Schiff of California, the top
Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. They said that
Kushner was there in his capacity as head of his family’s real estate
business. Investigators say they are studying those accounts with keen
interest.

gee

I hope Jared and Ivana don't end up living in a double wide in Arkansas or somewhere worse !!!

maybe they can bunk with Donnie and Melania ???

turn over a stone in the Trump family garden

and your GUARANTEED to find a Ruskie underneath

“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov

And you just know that everyone is racking their brains trying to remember what was said in any conversations with Papadopoulos since the Feds reeled him in and started squeezing him. And as far as Trump having no idea who George Papadopoulos is, in a 2016 Washington Post interview during his campaign he described him as an "excellent guy" who was an "energy and oil consultant". Knew him, used him, and then threw him under the wheels of the bus. Business as usual in Donnie's world - business, personal or political.

Must be getting pretty bloody under that bus

"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep""Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum